68 replies to this topic

[Foxfire]

Tesunie, on 02 February 2014 - 09:32 PM, said:

My personal thought process with this question is, once we have hit detection and HSR fully up and running, slowing down convergence would probably be a good idea. Then, counter to a lot of other people (of course in my opinion), skill would change from "twitch and shoot" to "hold the reticule over my target for a few moments to let my weapons converge, then shoot". Skill sets would become different, and I think overall needed skill to play well would be better. (It would improve "skill needed" to play the game, as many people complain about this game becoming a "skilless game".)

Slower convergence would help protect lights, as it's hard to keep a bead on them which would make getting convergence difficult, but would also make most light mechs harder to aim with as well, as you move so fast it's hard to keep your own reticule over an enemy all the time as well. Speed could (if lights are found to have too much of an advantage) make convergence even slowing to gain as another concept, meaning moving slower helps with aiming, but moving faster would help with defense... and you might have to choose which advantage at which time. (Might also encourage more true to lore roles, such as heavies/assaults moving slower. I could see twist speed might need to be desinked from engine size as well, depending upon results.) ACs would require some patients, and lasers would gain the role of a "fast response" weapon system. AKA: ACs would rather wait for full convergence (which could be signed with your reticule turning gold), and lasers could be fired before convergence is gained, and slowly hone into a target (or still splash their damage all over the place).

Biggest problem with adding in a slower convergence would be "I aimed and shot, why didn't I hit!" being a major complaint, and would probably only make the learning curve steeper... Many people wouldn't understand the concept, or would (as I see with chain fire since Ghost heat) overreact to these changes by standing still to shoot.

Any system implemented would have it's goods and it's bads. Pros and cons. I don't think there is ever going to be a perfect system that everyone could agree on...

A convergence system is something that I've wanted in this game since closed beta. Unfortunately, the engine they use cannot do anything more than instant convergence on a point. Since this is a limitation of the engine and PGI will be unlikely to pay the money to get the support from the Crytek developers to address this limitation, we are left with having to work around the limitation to fix the problems that the limitation creates.

Convergence was something that PGI wanted to do, as evidenced by the original mech skill that increased convergence speed.

[stjobe]

Foxfire, on 03 February 2014 - 03:04 PM, said:

Convergence was something that PGI wanted to do, as evidenced by the original mech skill that increased convergence speed.

We had convergence before HSR. HSR is what killed convergence, not any engine limitations.

[Foxfire]

stjobe, on 03 February 2014 - 03:06 PM, said:

We had convergence before HSR. HSR is what killed convergence, not any engine limitations.

Actually, no we didn't. Weapons have always instantly converged onto a single point. Be it from the reticle for the arm or torso.

The 'convergence' system that we had and still have is a reference to the time it takes for the arm and torso reticles to rejoin after making a turn.

*edits to add*

Just as a reference, the No Guts No Galaxy Podcast where they covered weapons convergence.

Edited by Foxfire, 03 February 2014 - 03:33 PM.

[Roland]

Yeah, convergence was something that was once considered by PGI, and then apparently abandoned at some later point, because.. reasons?

[stjobe]

Foxfire, on 03 February 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

Actually, no we didn't. Weapons have always instantly converged onto a single point. Be it from the reticle for the arm or torso.

The 'convergence' system that we had and still have is a reference to the time it takes for the arm and torso reticles to rejoin after making a turn.

*edits to add*

Just as a reference, the No Guts No Galaxy Podcast where they covered weapons convergence.

I stand corrected. Many thanks!

And when PGI says they can't do convergence due to HSR, they mean convergence-as-in-proper-convergence, not convergence-as-in-torso-and-arms-reticules.

I understand now. I think. But I also remember laser beams and PPC bolts criss-crossing in front or behind a target, and that was blamed on "convergence" - but it didn't have anything to do with torso-vs-arms, since both weapons were mounted in arms.

What was that all about then?

[Roland]

stjobe, on 03 February 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:

I stand corrected. Many thanks!

And when PGI says they can't do convergence due to HSR, they mean convergence-as-in-proper-convergence, not convergence-as-in-torso-and-arms-reticules.

I understand now. I think. But I also remember laser beams and PPC bolts criss-crossing in front or behind a target, and that was blamed on "convergence" - but it didn't have anything to do with torso-vs-arms, since both weapons were mounted in arms.

What was that all about then?

Your weapons converge on the point where your reticle is. So, if you are aiming in front of a target (such as leading a moving target) then your weapons will actually be slightly apart at the target's range... More or less, depending on the difference in range between the target and your aim point. If you are aiming at the sky, then your weapons will effectively have no convergence at all.

[Praehotec8]

Unfortunately this debate largely comes down to an argument between light pilots and heav/assault pilots. Each has their own opinions on what lights should be capable of.

I imagine that currently, lights are quite fragile for play in the top ELO levels as everyone there has (generally speaking) quite accurate aim, even against mechs moving at high speeds. In the lower ELOs, I imagine that lights are proportionally more powerful as not being hit is better than any armor.

As (I would think) a lower-middle ELO player, I find that I have a much easier time killing larger mechs, but die more to heavier mechs also. In a heavy or assault mech, I can usually drive off single lights but not (barring having a nice AC20 or similar to take out a leg) kill them quickly, so I focus on larger opponents.

Currently, I think for the average player, lights punch above what their weight class would (should?) imply. I think that particularly the skirmish-oriented lights should have that damage output, but ought to crumple even more easily than now - think locust durability with more firepower. Thus, good light pilots would still be able to hit-and-run, and lesser light pilots (not anyone posting in this thread, obviously) would be able to cap/scout, etc.

In return, convergence should be adjusted. There's actually a very simple solution for those of you who find instant convergence/pinpoint aiming and tracking too easy to achieve. Grab a joystick (yes, I KNOW no one should be required to buy a peripheral for this game - don't start that argument...just bear with the idea for discussion's sake). Then, when you can track spiders at 1000m with your AC2s and put pinpoint damage on single components, then you can complain again. Just using a joystick changes the nature of the game considerably, and tracking targets becomes much more of a challenge

I think that mouse tracking should be somewhat slowed and smoothed out, simulating the time needed to move the arms/torso, just as the joystick does (or as most joystick users need to allow for accurate aiming). It likely is not possible to make the mouse feel the same as the joystick, but any change would make it harder to track and harder to make long-range pinpoint shots. The best part would be - skill is still important.

Granted this will never happen, nor am I sure that it could be simulated well, but I wanted people to think about the fact that the biggest problem with the game comes, in large part, from the precision of the peripheral used to aim: the mouse.

[Foxfire]

If you project a line from the center of your cockpit/torso(not sure where the origin point is personally) to the center of the reticle, the weapons will converge on any point that intersects a hitable object. For example, if you pull a trigger with the reticle centered on a rock, your weapons will fire from the mount point on the mech and center on the rock. If, however, you pull the trigger while targeting a mech... say a fast mech, and the mech is no longer there by the time your fire reaches the 'point', your weapon fire will cross. You won't see this with beamed weapons since they are continuous fire for their duration(thus adjusting to the new convergence point)... but with AC's, SRM's, and PPC's, you will see it happen.

Granted, there are limitations for the minimum distance where actual convergence can occur.. but that is less a function of coding and more of the spread of the hard points.

Edited by Foxfire, 03 February 2014 - 04:11 PM.

[Foxfire]

Roland, on 03 February 2014 - 03:37 PM, said:

Yeah, convergence was something that was once considered by PGI, and then apparently abandoned at some later point, because.. reasons?

I have been unable to dig up the post but, IIRC, there was a post made by a dev when questions came up after they removed the convergence speed tweek from mech bonuses that it was an issue with the limitation of the game engine that prevented them from adding a robust convergence system.